[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] [] [] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
joy
joy
Wed Nov 13 22:20:49 EET 2013
hi - couple of options:
1. Simply delete Richard's name and refer to the research efforts in
general
2. members of NCSG with individual sign on - I am happy to sign on to this
Joy
On 14/11/2013 9:18 a.m., Maria Farrell wrote:
> How about 'members of the NCSG' and name us individually?
>
>
> On 13 November 2013 20:19, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Any thoughts on how to submit the statement at this point? There's
> less than four hours left before the deadline.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ed. I've taken Richard Clayton's name out of the document.
>> On language, I don't feel the language used is inappropriately
>> strong on one hand or restrained on the other. It's pretty
>> straight forward critical appraisal of a study's methods and
>> conclusions. I imagine that Clayton is used to this, as I suspect
>> any researcher is.
>>
>> If you feel the language in the statement is in parts
>> inappropriate, please correct me. It was not my intent to be
>> aggressive in my comments in any way. I tried to be as objective
>> as possible on the content of the study report.
>>
>> Thanks again for your support, Ed.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Edward Morris
>> <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu
>> <mailto:edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Amr,
>>>
>>> I'm late to the table but am happy to lend my name as well.
>>>
>>> Quick question: Are we going with the stronger or more
>>> restrained language concerning methodology? As I think we've
>>> discussed, I do know Clayton, he'll do what his paymasters want
>>> but at heart he's one of us. We could do a lot worse if they do
>>> a more extensive follow up study.
>>>
>>> Happy to support regardless.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>> From what I can tell, we do not at this time have the
>>> support required for this to be an NCSG statement. I'm
>>> guessing the prudent course of action at this point so close
>>> to the deadline is to submit it as a statement by members of
>>> the NCSG, if others are willing to endorse it. Milton, Kathy
>>> and Joy contributed to the draft. Wendy, Bill and Maria
>>> expressed their support of it. McTim did as well, but some
>>> substantial changes were made following this. Not sure if I
>>> missed anyone else.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Few hours to go and I am still not sure we have the
>>> consensus to put this forward.
>>> >
>>> > I think we might, but I am not sure?
>>> >
>>> > avri
>>> >
>>> > On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hey Amr,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for this. I'm going to bow to yours (and Kathy's
>>> and Milton's) superior knowledge of this piece of work and
>>> withdraw my suggestion.
>>> >>
>>> >> Let's get this one out the door so we can all get on our
>>> planes.
>>> >>
>>> >> All the best, Maria
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 13 November 2013 13:12, Amr Elsadr
>>> <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> >> Hi Maria,
>>> >>
>>> >> To be honest, I'm not sure who highlighted the text or
>>> why. It wasn't meant to be deleted by me, and nobody posted
>>> questions on it until now.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regarding the harsh criticism..., to be honest I like the
>>> report in one regard; that it exhausts every means to
>>> describe the methods used to conduct the research as
>>> thoroughly as one would hope to expect. It is because of the
>>> excellent reporting of the methodology that it was
>>> relatively easy to spot flaws. I don't know Clayton
>>> personally and don't doubt that he is a great researcher,
>>> and I am glad to learn that he does good work on the privacy
>>> front. However, IMHO, I don't see the sentence highlighted
>>> in yellow as being harsh criticism to him personally..., but
>>> rather an important part of a descriptive summary of our
>>> feedback in the conclusion of the statement. This is of
>>> course feedback on the results of the study, and not on his
>>> person. I hope he can make that distinction.
>>> >>
>>> >> I say this, but would like to clarify that I am not the
>>> author of that specific sentence. I am in favour of it
>>> staying the way it is, unless a more favourable substitute
>>> can be drafted. I don't think it gives the same message as
>>> the sentence that is in bold, but rather compliments it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Still..., that is just my personal opinion, but if you
>>> feel strongly about it sending the wrong sort of message, I
>>> don't mind taking it out.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks Maria.
>>> >>
>>> >> Amr
>>> >>
>>> >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Maria Farrell
>>> <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM <mailto:maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi Amr,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow;
>>> "However, the methodology used here means that these
>>> research findings are fundamentally flawed, show bias and
>>> are therefore not a safe basis for policy development. "
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I
>>> would support this deletion and substitution. While no doubt
>>> the study is flawed for the reasons we all know this stuff
>>> is more or less impossible to study comprehensively and
>>> fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good privacy and
>>> crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise him as
>>> harshly.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led
>>> by Dr. Richard Clayton on the work done in an effort of
>>> producing the final report, we respectfully but strongly
>>> submit that the results of this study do not provide the
>>> necessary insight to support policy decisions at this time,
>>> and require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse
>>> research being conducted.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr
>>> <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This statement has changed substantially over the past
>>> 24 hours with what I believe to be a lot of great input from
>>> different NCSGers. There is roughly just a little over 12
>>> hours left before the deadline to submit, so this is a last
>>> call to take a look at the statement if you can.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The statement can be found here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>>> >>>
>>> >>> and more on the study can be found here:
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks all.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Amr
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr
>>> <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn't
>>> open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have
>>> changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert
>>> some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to
>>> look over them and give more feedback, I'd really appreciate it.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thanks again.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Amr
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller
>>> <mueller at SYR.EDU <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Amr:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some
>>> suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not
>>> authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>>> >>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] on behalf of Amr
>>> Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>]
>>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>>> >>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's
>>> Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Thanks McTim,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I've replaced "more study of Whois privacy and proxy
>>> abuse should be conducted" with "more Whois privacy and
>>> proxy abuse research should be conducted" in the last
>>> paragraph. I hope that's what you were referring to.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Thanks again.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Amr
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim
>>> <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM <mailto:dogwallah at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr
>>> <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I've taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN
>>> Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>> >>>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but
>>> we have until November
>>> >>>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period.
>>> At this point, I would
>>> >>>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the
>>> policy committee are
>>> >>>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or
>>> not there are any
>>> >>>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I've drafted the statement on a Google doc, which
>>> you can find here:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse
>>> should be conducted"
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it
>>> becomes:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research
>>> should be conducted"
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> McTim
>>> >>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates
>>> where it is. A
>>> >>>>>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131114/2d782c85/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list